As many have pointed out, Eve is a spiritual descendent of UO, and I think DAoC is as well.

I think the lessons from Eve and DAoC are very simple - you need "timeout" areas; places where people can go to avoid the full-on PvP. Eve also has consequences for being a pirate - you can't enter high-sec space anymore.

Finally, I think Eve has a skill & equipment system that allows new players to enter PvP fairly easy. Unlike most games, it's not simply "bigger=better"; all levels of ships have a role in combat, and quite frankly what you see in low-sec areas (I can't speak to 0.0) is mostly frigates, cruisers, and battle-cruiser classed ships.

So distinct pvp regions and an easy entry for low "level" players is what's necessary.

Seriously, you have no idea what's going on inside someone else's brain. I wish I had the points to mark you a "troll", because that's about the best we can say when you make suppositions about someone's motives from so little information.

It's nice and easy to label it all "risk-taking", but there is a distinction between betting on cards and buying houses. Quite honestly, I've never seen a problem with house-flipping; sure, there are probably marginal cases, but in general people buy houses that need real work done to them, do that work, then resell. Sounds completely above-board to me.

I agree. My brother bought the game, and became bored very quickly and gave it to me. I got bored, forced myself to try again just to prove him wrong, and still got bored and was forced to agree with my sibling (no easy feat).

I don't recall ever feeling so railroaded in gaming in all my life. This game represents some of the worst traits of a real-life dungeon-master.

Make a game based around tanks, rogues, and wizards, each countering the other, each with limited self-healing capabilities and very limited AOEs. Blur the lines by allowing tanks to use crossbows, rogues to use bows, and wizards get to create awesome light-swords that cut through everything.

That's just one approach. Another is to allow some classes to deploy "mines" or create temporary "walls" (think necro from diablo creating a wall of bone).

Anyways, that's a couple off the top of my head that don't involve being just one in the crowd.

How about we look at military history? Infantry, cavalry, artillery? Pikes, Muskets, Cavalry? And so on. There are many models we could use that provide interesting tactical arrangements without forcing groups to spend hours waiting for a healer.

Yes, but the emails show that the preexisting bias is on the climate-scientists side, not the skeptic's side.

Look, we have a group of people discussing the deletion of emails in response to a FOI request. They also discuss boycotting forums that publish an opposing point of view. That these items were even considered is all the sign we need that something is not kosher. Sure, the science may remain legitamite, but these particular scientists are not to be trusted. They are snake-oil salesman who at best may have lucked into the correct side of a debate.

It is *impossible* for the school to teach a student who is either a) not self-motivated, or b) motivated by a parent. IMPOSSIBLE.

If the schools get in the way of parents, then parents will be even less likely to do their jobs. Thus, I believe the schools should deliberately give back the reigns, teach the kids just like normal, and fail the kids who don't pass muster.

"...and if parents can't be bothered, then schools must take up the slack."

No, they shouldn't. In fact, they absolutely should avoid taking up the slack, for the sake of the country. The problme is that the parents should be bothered, and bothered again until they retake the slack.